In Local TV LLC v. Superior Court (Knutssen), ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Sept. 2, 2016), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) concluded that the plaintiff's UCL "unlawful" prong claim failed because the underlying, "borrowed" claims (for common-law and statutory misappropriation of name and likeness) failed. Slip op. at 14-15. Evidently, the plaintiff did not separately plead a violation of the UCL's "unfair" prong.
The discussion of the UCL claim reads, in full:
Plaintiffs also alleged that LTV violated Business and Professions Code section 17200 et. seq., the unfair competition law. Section 17200 provides a private cause of action for any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Section 17200, however, is not a substitute for a tort or contract action, and it generally is limited to providing injunctive relief and restitution to prevent ongoing or threatened acts of unfair competition. (Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 371.) Our Supreme Court has stated that “‘section 17200 “borrows” violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices’ that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable. (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. [Superior Court] (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1103, citing Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court [(1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, 383]).” (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180.)
Here, as alleged against LTV, the sole factual basis for the section 17200 claim is the same as for the misappropriation tort discussed in section II above. Plaintiffs seek the precise monetary damages that they seek in the misappropriation cause of action. Because summary judgment in favor of LTV was proper on the cause of action that the section 17200 claim “borrows,” summary judgment is likewise warranted on the unfair business practices claim.